Does Utilitarianism Promote Justice

 by Naome Dixon

Jeremy Bentham

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory first theorised by Jeremy Bentham (Act Utilitarianism) then later developed by John S Mill (Rule Utilitarianism) that is based on the concept that if an action is right, it will produce the, “greatest happiness for the greatest number”. It has roots in Greek philosophy, via the influence of eudomina (flourishing human life) and also is influenced by hedonism (primarily via Benthams’s hedonic calculus). The theory is mainly teleological (as it is concerned with the outcome of an action) but Mill did introduce a deontological aspect via his harm principle and higher and lower pleasures. It is a theory that is largely seen to be the basis of modern democracy (due to the rule of liberty proposed via Mill) but one could argue that it does not promote Justice. This is perhaps due to its secular nature, thus it is not compatible with Christian justice, the shortcomings of Bentham’s principle of utility that sees all types of pleasure as equal and the objection to the tyranny of the majority that can arise (that could lead to the suppression of minorities). Despite this, one can conclude that the ethical theory partially promotes justice, due to Mill’s higher and lower pleasures, his harm principle and Bentham's progressive views concerning animal’s place within the hierarchy. 

One could argue that Utilitarianism does not promote justice, due to its secular nature which contradicts Christian values. For example, the theologian Irenaeus would disagree that society should solely strive for pleasure and avoid pain, as pain (or suffering ) was something divinely created in order for humans to cultivate spiritual perfection via choosing to do right in the face of trials and tribulations of everyday suffering. Thus, the theories guiding principle, “greatest happiness for the greatest number” could arguably try to avoid the evil in our earthly existence that is there to help humans reach spiritual perfection. Furthermore, the concept that the right action can be scientifically calculated (using Bentham’s hedonic calculus) in a relativistic manner directly contradicts the objective nature of God’s commandments in the divinely revealed scriptures. Thus, one could argue that from a religious perspective, Utilitarianism does not promote justice due to its secular nature, as it inherently would not promote the objective Christian understanding of justice. However, Mill himself believed that his theory has captured the spirit of the Christian Golden rule, “to love thy neighbour” as many Christians would argue if this was practised, universal happiness would come about, which arguably holds parallels with the goal of Utilitarianism to promote the, ‘greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number”. Nonetheless, despite this baseline similarity, it can be argued that from a religious perspective, Utilitarianism does not promote justice, due to its subjective and secular understanding of morality, which undermines Christian justice. 

Moreover, one could argue that Utilitarianism does not promote justice due to the objections to Bentham’s principle of utility, which states that an action is right if it promotes and maximises happiness. While this may seem to promote justice at a first glance, it could be used to justify heinous acts which are universally accepted as immoral. This can be seen in the case of gang rape, where it could be argued it is acceptable is the pleasure the multiple rapists feel outweighs the pain the victim experiences. This is especially an issue as Bentham’s makes no distinction between types of pleasure and instead sees all forms of pleasure as equal. Arguably, this does not promote justice as it places the emphasis on maximising pleasure instead of trying to minimise pain. Conversely, one could argue that Mill’s development of Utilitarianism solves this issue, due to his harm principle and his distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Mill stated concerning his  harm principle, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised on one member of a civilized community… is to prevent the harm of others”. Thus, gang rape would not be accepted under Mill’s rule Utiltarinism, due to the harm principle. Furthermore, Mill makes a distinction between higher pleasures (intellectual pleasures such as reading poetry) and lower pleasures (physical pleasures such as sexual) placing higher pleasures above lower. Mill states that it is, “better be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied” regarding these differing types of pleasure. This eradicates the issue of justice within a gang rape, as it is obviously ruled by lower pleasures and thus the pleasure does not outweigh the pain caused. Thus one can argue that this issue in Bentham’s principle of utility is solved via Mill’s development, meaning that in particular, rule Utilitarianism can be seen to promote justice. 

Lastly, one can argue that Utilitarianism does not promote justice due to the side effect of tyranny of the majority that can lead to the suppression of minority groups. This is due to the guiding principle, “greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number” which could mean that minority groups (due to their smaller ‘number’) will be ignored and arguably exploited. This can be seen with the Application of Utilitarianism to the issue of animal experimentation for medical research. Both Bentham and Mill would allow animal experimentation, if it would lead to the amount of pleasure the medical research would provide, outweighing the pain of the animals experimented on. However, some extremist animal activists (such as Animal Liberation) would disagree with this stance and argue that it is unjust, as animals are arguably a minority group that would suffer due to the majority of humans benefiting from the research. Reinforcing this, Mill did not see animal pleasure as equal to human pleasure as they cannot commit higher pleasures, which one could argue is not a stance that promotes justice for animals. However, one could argue that this stance is the most just application, as without it many medical discoveries would not be made that benefit society as a whole. Moreover, Bentham argued that animal pleasure should be taken into consideration and can be even considered as a proto-animal rights activist due to his statement, “The question is not, can they reason ? Nor can they talk? But can they suffer?” Arguably this progressive view on the issue of animal rights promotes justice despite his subjective acceptance of animal experimentation, thus Utilitarianism arguably does promote justice. 

In conclusion, one can conclude that Utilitarianism partially promotes justice. It does promote justice due to Mill’s harm principle, as well as his development of higher and lower powers and Bentham’s proto-animal rights activism. However, from a religious perspective, one can argue that it does not, due to the theory’s secular nature which contradicts with the objective concept of Christian justice.